Northeast conservative wants divorce from GOP
David Brooks, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, looks at the current state of affairs and wants a divorce, or at least a trial separation:
“Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities? Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks. Moreover, in the South and rural West, where most Republicans are from, the (belief that government is the problem) has deep historic and psychological roots. Anti-Washington, anti-urban sentiment has characterized those cultures for decades.
It’s probably futile to try to change current Republicans. It’s smarter to build a new wing of the Republican Party, one that can compete in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, in the upper Midwest and along the West Coast. It’s smarter to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton.
The second GOP … would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power, but who don’t share the absolute anti-government story of the current GOP.
Would a coastal and Midwestern GOP sit easily with the Southern and Western one? No, but majority parties are usually coalitions of the incompatible. This is really the only chance Republicans have.
The question is: Who’s going to build a second GOP?”
I don’t have an answer for him. Maybe Chris Christie? Somehow, though, I have a feeling this is all going to end up being Barack Obama’s fault.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
563 comments Add your comment
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
3:50 pm
“Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right so it is left up to the states to decide just like the age people can marry and the degree of relationship one can be married.”
Loving vs Virginia proves that marriage rights are not solely a state issue.
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
3:50 pm
The rise of the 3rd PARTY will be to late to stop the dive of brain dead zombie lemmings for Obama over the FISCAL CLIFF. Our 1st REALITY SHOW Prez will do a cameo on “HONEY BOO BOO” in an effort to regain his voters. To little to late. …… and aren’t Tom Murphy and Roy Barnes some of those ole’ white guys on the left?
Jay
January 29th, 2013
3:53 pm
“pathetic to use that as an example ….”
??????
Maybe you would prefer this one?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1002-14.htm
Georgia , The "New Mississippi"
January 29th, 2013
3:54 pm
Johnny Reb RepubliCons led by Ru$h Limbaugh or………….. Non – Johnny Reb RepubliCons led by Mitt “47 %” Romney ……………..Pick your poison
stands for decibels
January 29th, 2013
3:55 pm
Jay, by reaching so far back into your archives, you’re reminding these guys that Coulter stopped being relevant ages ago, and that probably hurts.
St Simons - aboriginal
January 29th, 2013
3:59 pm
“A bobo is a bourgeois bohemian”
um, that’s not what my teenagers say bobo means
but they say it still applies to Republicans heheh
td
January 29th, 2013
3:59 pm
Jay
January 29th, 2013
3:34 pm
It appears that 20 million people in this country in 1984 crossed voted for Reagan and the crossed over and voted for a Democrat for office. It appears that there was very few if any crossover voters this year so with districts drawn as safe by both parties.
Conclusions:
1: The nation is more partisan now then it was in 1984.
2: Districts have been packed with like minded voters.
3: Obama got every possible urban vote out to the polls while 8 million less republicans even showed up to vote then in 2008.
One other small thing to consider. Republicans in this state really thought they could have had one more seat in Congress but they were afraid of drawing the districts in a way that might have taken an African American district out due to the voting rights act.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
3:59 pm
The political carpetbagging Dixiecrats should start their own party, they have destroyed the Republican party. They have been Democrats, Dixiecrats, Democrats again, now Republicans. Real Republicans are sick of them and want a divorce.
Recon 0311 2533
January 29th, 2013
3:59 pm
” do not think that word means what you think it means…”
It may be that thinking is your problem as assuming is a symptom.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
3:59 pm
SfD — “you’re reminding these guys that Coulter stopped being relevant ages ago, and that probably hurts.”
Indeed. Why, she’s probably shed her skin five or six times now since she was last relevant.
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:00 pm
gerrymandering was invented by the left. YES you did it first. Cheating is not relegated to the right. You have done your share of shady deals. As far as the AJC goes I have found that it fits nicely in the bottom of Mushu’s (my bearded dragon) cage. Then I apply a nice layer of sand so he will feel at home. Loves those chirpy little crickets – yum yum! You know – those chirpy crickets some how remind me of D.C. politicians.
Northeast conservative wants divorce from GOP – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) | Conservatives for America
January 29th, 2013
4:01 pm
[...] Northeast conservative wants divorce from GOPAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)“Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities? Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks. Moreover, in the South and rural West, where most …and more » [...]
td
January 29th, 2013
4:02 pm
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
3:50 pm
“Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right so it is left up to the states to decide just like the age people can marry and the degree of relationship one can be married.”
Loving vs Virginia proves that marriage rights are not solely a state issue.
Being discriminated against based on race is Constitutionally protected (See the 13th and 14th amendments). Now show me who you have sex with is protected in the Constitution?
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 29th, 2013
4:03 pm
Jay
When the Republicans get a divorce it will be nasty.
Who gets the guns.
Who gets the House (Dems got the Senate)
Who gets custody of Grover, Rush, Hannity etc
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:05 pm
My goodness! yes indeed! Mushu does shed his skin like a good lizard should but he takes no part in PARTY LOYALTY politics ’cause I raised him right…… USA first. These D.C.’ers can shed their skin faster than a lie can pass their lips. Chameleons abound in D.C. and are not what the appear to be.
in for a short g@-@nder
January 29th, 2013
4:06 pm
….I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking,….
Brooks checkin’ out Obama’s pant leg and Chris Matthews gets a tingle up his own.
He took a fancy to the cut of O’s jib and would like to accompany him on his voyage.
ew
Bon voyage, Mr. Brooks! Smo-o-o-o-o-ooooch sailin’.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
4:07 pm
“Now show me who you have sex with is protected in the Constitution?”
The Supreme Court ruled against sodomy laws, the case they heard was based on sex. All sodomy laws were thrown out, states that had sodomy laws that only prohibited gay sex included.
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 29th, 2013
4:08 pm
St Simon’s
Will we be having that convention 30 miles east of you on your New Yacht?
You know that as a 1%er it’s the new requirement for entry to the NEW Republican Party
skipper
January 29th, 2013
4:09 pm
Seems like the leftist agenda ia never complete until the gays come into the conversation. Seems like the rightist agenda is never complete until abortion comes into the conversation.
Folks defend the gay situation by comparing it to slavery, etc. You gotta look at it more objectively than that. When the populace has been educated forever that being gay is this/that/the other it is hard to instantly change ones mind. In manuals, medical books, schools, etc. it was taught as a perversion, etc. Compare it to all of a sudden someone deciding that sharia law is now the law of the land. Lots of folks are not gonna just say “okay” when it was pounded by practically every institution in the country. Something ingrained for wrong as so long is not easily all of a sudden gonna be accepted as right. Lets say the scouts do accept gays, leaders and all. What is the difference between a gay leader in the tent with a little boy, even if there is no bad intention at all, and a straight male leader in the tent with a little girl in girl scouts (again, even if there is no bad intent?)
How about showers, etc? I sure as hell am independant, but this one is baffling to say the least…………………
indigo
January 29th, 2013
4:09 pm
I’d say Brooks thinks southern Republicans are essentially rubes.
Unfortunately, that’s all too true.
Mr Right
January 29th, 2013
4:09 pm
About Jay Bookman
An Atlanta blog with a little bit of opinion about a whole lot of things
Is this a lie or what? It’s not about a whole lot of things,just mostly about blasting the GOP!
Jay
January 29th, 2013
4:11 pm
Ahh, maybe that explains it, sfd.
And yes, you’re also right that she’s no longer relevent.
Brosephus™
January 29th, 2013
4:11 pm
It appears that 20 million people in this country in 1984 crossed voted for Reagan and the crossed over and voted for a Democrat for office.
It appears that math is not your friend.
1984 vote totals.
Reagan: 54,455,472
Mondale: 37,577,352
Total votes cast in presidential election: 92,032,824
House Dems: 42,799,060
House GOP: 38,540,762
Total votes cast in House elections: 82,421,838 (including 3rd party votes)
Senate Dems: 23,079,278
Senate GOP: 22,850,493
Total votes cast in Senate elections: 46,322,800 (including 3rd party votes)
I don’t see where your 20 million crossover voters come from. There were 10 million more votes cast in the presidential election than in the House race and about 45 million more than in the Senate race. Reagan got less than 12 million more votes than House Dems, so I can’t imagine where you’d get 20 million crossover votes. However, given your knack at posting factually incorrect information, I’d say you’re par for the course today.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
4:12 pm
“…just mostly about blasting the GOP!”
Notice he has plenty to write about! Tons of ammunition. Some of the stuff writes itself.
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:12 pm
Skin shedding is a process of this “evolving” Prez. – He shed himself of Rev RAT when he was no longer politically “convenient”. He shed himself of believing marriage is between one man and one woman when that “philosophy” was no longer convenient. Now Obama – shed yourself of the FISCAL CLIFF…….. and the political disaster to follow. This is one time I am looking for a miracle ’cause I know Obama won’t shed his way out of this one.
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 29th, 2013
4:13 pm
Bro
They’re just Mathturbating again
alex
January 29th, 2013
4:13 pm
Mabye I should spell this out a little more: Jay, if you have to reference 10 year old articlesto claim objectivity, you simply have none To stands, I am refering to the years of Jay’s op pieces, Goodness…move on. Jay, have the courage to defend your convictions not some 10 year old references….
@Common..yet divorce may help all the children of the family to lead happier lives and the sooner the better….Obama shed ACORN, the right can shed some of the far right groups…happens for political expediency,,
GUTRAKE
January 29th, 2013
4:14 pm
There are no conservatives in the Northeast. This is a specious argument.
Jay
January 29th, 2013
4:14 pm
“Lets say the scouts do accept gays, leaders and all. What is the difference between a gay leader in the tent with a little boy, even if there is no bad intention at all, and a straight male leader in the tent with a little girl in girl scouts (again, even if there is no bad intent?)
How about showers, etc? I sure as hell am independant, but this one is baffling to say the least…………………”
Skipper, I suspect it’s already against Scout rules for any adult to sleep alone in a tent with any child other than his or her own child, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
Jay
January 29th, 2013
4:17 pm
alex, i wasn’t citing those pieces to “establish my objectivity.” Where did you ever get nonsense like that?
Anyone who took a moment to read those pieces would understand that immediately. You’re overreacting.
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:17 pm
“Northeast conservative” – are you trying to make a funny?
Brosephus™
January 29th, 2013
4:17 pm
NoCom
I don’t understand the desire to stretch the truth when all these things are recorded fact.
Uh Huh....It is the South and Rural West To Blame
January 29th, 2013
4:17 pm
@in for a short g@-@nder
January 29th, 2013
4:06 pm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What are your “psychological roots”….the place where your beliefs began,
where did it spring into being?
I KNOW……The SOUTH.
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 29th, 2013
4:19 pm
Bro
True that,
BUT, BUT, BUT OBAMA’S BLACK
Michael
January 29th, 2013
4:20 pm
Morality, are you still licking your wounds? Bet you will vote for Rand Paul in 2016 and dumb it down another notch or two.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
4:22 pm
alex — “Mabye I should spell this out a little more: Jay, if you have to reference 10 year old articlesto claim objectivity, you simply have none”
As poor Parisians said in the streets during the French Revolution, “le Wordpress, she awaits your pleasure, Monsieur.“
td
January 29th, 2013
4:23 pm
Brosephus™
January 29th, 2013
4:11 pm
Ruff estimate off the top of my head after gazing over several other post with numbers.
I was counting what House GOP received as compared to Reagan and it was a little less the 15 million instead of 20 million. Geez have I committed a severe crime in your book.
Point is still relevant. A great number of people crossed over unlike this election cycle. Conclusion based on this other circumstantial evidence is that this country is way more partisan today then in 1984.
When a thesis is close being viable and debunks a left talking point you (progressives) tend to want to argue about specifics instead of the overall theme.
Uh Huh....It is the South and Rural West To Blame
January 29th, 2013
4:24 pm
@Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:12 pm
Skin shedding is a process of this “evolving” Prez. – He shed himself of Rev RAT when he was no longer politically “convenient”. He shed himself of believing marriage is between one man and one woman when that “philosophy” was no longer convenient. Now Obama – shed yourself of the FISCAL CLIFF…….. and the political disaster to follow. This is one time I am looking for a miracle ’cause I know Obama won’t shed his way out of this one.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like you know about shedding.
Do Snakes Ever Stop Shedding Their Skin?
TBS
January 29th, 2013
4:24 pm
Bro
Why does your last exchange remind me of an exchange you had about the voting in OH?
I’m just waiting to read a post about how it was the “publication’s” where the assertion was derived from fault and not the grandiose bs assertion of the blogger’s fault.
Once I read that it will be a complete Deja Vu………….
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:24 pm
The Boy Scouts – even under pressure from the radical left – will not change their morals and convictions. Those on the left are out to destroy anyone that disagrees with them. The radical left are the HATERS of free expression.. Scouts have a right to their views – just as you do. They also have a right to not be attacked and intimidated by the ACLU. Why don’t you form your own “scouts” and include “gays” if you wish…… the right won’t attack you for it and the ACLU won’t intimidate you.
josef
January 29th, 2013
4:24 pm
SKIPPER
I can see you’ve got issues…I read your post twice. On the one hand, you seem to have a pretty good idea of where the anti gay cultural attitudes come from, but on the other, you seem to still be struggling with how to relate to that imposed from outside from your own qualms and insecurities. Keep at it, though, you are evolving.
And the thread in general?
Not a Republican, so it don’t really matter to me.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
4:25 pm
Uh Huh — “Do Snakes Ever Stop Shedding Their Skin?”
Yes.
Once they die.
Dr. Sharp
January 29th, 2013
4:26 pm
A Modern Proposal (an initial draft)
It has been a long time since my great, great, great grandfather, the esteemed Dr. Swift, undertook to propose a just and sensible solution to the problem of starvation in his beloved Ireland. Happily, we do not find ourselves in that same plight as citizens of these United States. But, we are nonetheless facing starvation of another sort – a felt and dire want
of opportunity to pursue happyness as we see best. This is greatly taxing the emotions and hope of our citizenry to such an extent that people in polls regularly indicate they see little prospect for the future or their lives and our country as a whole. And, as he Good Book says, where there is no vision, the people perish. It is rare now to observe our citizens investing in new enterprises or embarking upon great adventures (as my great forebear’s close friend, Gulliver, did a few centuries ago). Instead, mired in a avalanche of responsibility, most have become technological automatons – living their pathetic lives enslaved to televisions, computers, cellphones, pdas and the like – all in a desperate attempt to save time
of which they would otherwise have plenty were it not for the oppressive burden of caring for others unable to care for themselves.
Some great strides to combat this problem have been made in recent decades, most notably the legalization of abortion. For it is an undeniable fact that children are a true inconvenience if they cannot be made to contribute to the well being of a family, such as they did at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Or – and this is more applicable to our current
problem – if the maintenance and care for children might consume so much time and money that parents are no longer free to do as they would and lapse into utter misery. Businesses offering care services, vacuous television shows and (most recently) video games have done much to alleviate this inconvenience and discomfort. But they are proving to be increasingly ineffective as the attention span of children, when they become inoculated to such diversions, has grown shorter and shorter. Indeed, children of this present age are more likely to become parasites, lounging around doing nothing while consuming valuable resources and unnecessarily taking up the space and time belonging to their parents.
So, instead of bringing infants to term and then using them as a source of sustenance (which my sage forebear, Dr. Swift proposed), it is indeed much more sensible in our present condition to terminate their lives before they are even born – thereby precluding costly food processing in a factory that would meet the applicable FDA requirements. The problem now,
however, is that abortions are allowed only before a certain period of time has elapsed in the pregnancy – the upper limit being 28 weeks. This is a monstrous and immoral restriction upon the rights of both parents and most notably the mother. For suppose, by way of example, that both parents are desirous to have a child but discover, late in the development of the fetus and by reading several articles outlining the high costs of parenting, that they really do not wish to have a child after all. Why then should their God-given right to pursue happyness be denied in the servitude of parenting? Those who argue otherwise, especially from professed religious motivations, demonstrate quite forcibly that they know neither the will of almighty God nor His power. Their only aim is to render the lives of poor parents utterly miserable and deny to them the very happyness they themselves enjoy. The lowest realms of the abyss are reserved for hypocrites such as these.
But, apart from legalizing all abortions and perhaps – for those parents who are somewhat dim-witted or otherwise slow to comprehend the ramifications of bringing another child into this world and the burden it imposes on them in restricting their right to pursue happyness – infanticide, there is yet another freedom of action that should be extended to grown children caring for another class of beings very similar to young children, who likewise have proven to be an impediment to the pursuit of happyness, and that is the infirm elderly. Indeed, it has often been observed that the elderly, once they lose their physical mobility and mental faculties, are but young children all over again. They therefore prove to be as much a nuisance as infants and as much an impediment to the desires of their caretakers to do as they wish. This, as in the case of burdensome young children, is a great evil.
Hence I propose the immediate legalization of euthanasia for the infirm elderly. Besides the very great benefit of freeing up the time and monetary resources of former caretakers, there is much to be materially gained from such a practice. Since, unlike unborn fetuses and infants, the elderly infirm frequently have in their bodies valuable items – such as harvestable organs and implantables (like gold fillings) – former caretakers might be able to recoup some or all of the money expended in the care of these organisms upon their cessation (aside from whatever goods may be gleaned through inheritance by means of a will).
They full sense and sagacity of this proposal should be evident to all. Some people have been arguing that the same rationale underlying this modest suggestion should be extended to other organisms, such as the mentally retarded and the completely paralyzed. I must say, although I felt at first some revulsion to the idea, I now see the prudence and logic of it and declare myself completely amenable to it. So, while I would be content with the implementation my own (narrower) proposal, I would be doubly content with a law that comprehends these additional modes of euthanasia.
MANGLER
January 29th, 2013
4:26 pm
You mean a conservative who can’t get along with an opposing viewpoint wants to just cut and run, or secede, rather than work hard to make progress? Never would have seen THAT coming!
TBS
January 29th, 2013
4:26 pm
“When a thesis is close being viable and debunks a left talking point you (progressives) tend to want to argue about specifics instead of the overall theme.”
You could have just blamed it on some publication. That has been done before. I think you might be aware of it.
indigo
January 29th, 2013
4:26 pm
Jay – 4:14
Any police detective will tell you pedofiles often get jobs that put them around children.
Common sense should tell you being a Boy Scout leader, to a pedofile, would be like a starving man finding himself in a large, well stocked supermarket.
I would not want my son to have a gay Scoutmaster.
Would you?
MANGLER
January 29th, 2013
4:27 pm
Jay, can there be length limits to comments please? The good Doctor is a bit long winded.
josef
January 29th, 2013
4:27 pm
MORALITY
“The Boy Scouts – even under pressure from the radical left – will not change their morals and convictions”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324329204578270052845910158.html
Aquagirl
January 29th, 2013
4:28 pm
Being discriminated against based on race is Constitutionally protected (See the 13th and 14th amendments).
Ok, which joker here slipped td a fake constitution? Fess up.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
4:28 pm
td — “When a thesis is close being viable and debunks a left talking point you (progressives) tend to want to argue about specifics instead of the overall theme.”
Translation: F***ing DETAILS
Brosephus™
January 29th, 2013
4:28 pm
was counting what House GOP received as compared to Reagan and it was a little less the 15 million instead of 20 million. Geez have I committed a severe crime in your book.
Nope, you have not committed a severe crime in my book. I have a degree in math, and I was simply pointing out the error of your mathematical analysis. As TBS pointed out, this is not your first time flubbing numbers to make them appear better than what they were. Whenever you post something honest, I’ll have no problem with backing you up. It only took 30 seconds to google those vote totals.
————————-
Why does your last exchange remind me of an exchange you had about the voting in OH?
Deja vu huh??
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 29th, 2013
4:28 pm
josef
Not a Republican, so it don’t really matter to me.
—————————————————————-
Glad you ain’t techin english to the younguns
TBS
January 29th, 2013
4:31 pm
josef
WSJ is known as a liberal commie rag so it doesn’t count.
weetamoe
January 29th, 2013
4:32 pm
The crease in the pants moment was his epiphany/damascus/conversion moment. Then he teamed up with dim bulb Gail Collins on some regular he says/she says op ed column in the New York Times. He seldom disagrees with Boston’s own Mark Shields on their PBS segment. Iowahawk has hilarious references to him in his spot-on lampoons of Northeastern Republicans. I consider him somewhat of a sniveler similar what was once called a name ending in …rat. But so as not to be considered libelous I will just assume that those who remember history will recognize the allusion.
too little time
January 29th, 2013
4:32 pm
I listened to David Brooks on NPR for years. He is definitely left of center. He is more conservative than your typical Democrat, but left of center on every issue is hardly conservative.
Brosephus™
January 29th, 2013
4:33 pm
td: When a thesis is close being viable and debunks a left talking point you (progressives) tend to want to argue about specifics instead of the overall theme.
I’m not a progressive, first of all. If you care to address something to me, don’t cloak it in your broad brushed BS. I loathe ALL political affiliations, as I think that’s the major problem with our whole system. You’re so focused on what you think my political leanings are, you still can’t grasp the fact that it takes 30 seconds to find numbers, yet you have fudged them more than once here.
When your thesis is something specific as claiming 20 million crossover voters, how is it being specific to prove you wrong by at least 25%? Your problem is that you pretend to be some kind of intellectual giant here when you obviously can’t even google simple facts to support your claims. Then again, if you googled anything, you’d find your claims are wrong.
Jay
January 29th, 2013
4:33 pm
Common sense should tell you being a Boy Scout leader, to a pedofile, would be like a starving man finding himself in a large, well stocked supermarket.
I would not want my son to have a gay Scoutmaster.
Would you?
So Indigo, in your world view, being gay means they would sexually abuse little boys? Gay=Pedophile?
By that same logic, I guess that means that as a heterosexual, you shouldn’t be trusted around 11-year-old girls, correct?
josef
January 29th, 2013
4:33 pm
Common Sense
willie lynch
January 29th, 2013
4:35 pm
You can’t blame them for wanting to separate themselves from the extreme Southern right wing of the party, they make no sense. I’d run too.
josef
January 29th, 2013
4:35 pm
TBS
Thass funny…I started to link the NYT article on it (which is where I first read it) and there was the WSJ one…I’m glad you caught the irony…
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:36 pm
Michael – I am not happy about the SOCIALIST left being in office. However, as I have said many times on here before I am not a PARTY LOYALIST. I am a FISCAL conservative – did not vote for “W” or Obama – as they are BOTH FISCAL liberals. Paul…. some he says I agree with some I do not. He would be better than we currently have…. at least on FISCAL spending matters. Unless we get this spending and the Fed debt under control all your dreams of the SOCIALIST social big spending programs on the left won’t mean a thing and won’t be financed during the the BIG “D” of 2013. I am not a member of EITHER PARTY. I will be a member of the PARTY THAT IS LOYAL TO THE FISCAL SOLVENCY AND SECURITY OF THE USA.
rightwingextreme
January 29th, 2013
4:36 pm
William Smith
January 29th, 2013
3:47 pm
The right believes that any gun control means the government is coming to get your gun. If you believe the government or anyone in the government has the power and desire to take your gun you better turn it in now.
Senator Feinstien and Commisar Cuomo have both publicly said they want to confiscate….in addition so has Commisar Bloomberg and several other mayors and police chiefs.
There is a desire to disarm the public from members of the socialist left.
TBS
January 29th, 2013
4:39 pm
josef
Oh I caught it and the lack of response you have received as well.
______________________
Not supposed to laugh at you own joke too much, but I did like my “Jewish League” joke last night.
Regnad Kcin
January 29th, 2013
4:40 pm
” I am not happy about the SOCIALIST left being in office.”
“You keep saying that word – I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya
rightwingextreme
January 29th, 2013
4:41 pm
skipper
January 29th, 2013
4:09 pm
Seems like the leftist agenda ia never complete until the gays come into the conversation. Seems like the rightist agenda is never complete until abortion comes into the conversation.
Folks defend the gay situation by comparing it to slavery, etc. You gotta look at it more objectively than that. When the populace has been educated forever that being gay is this/that/the other it is hard to instantly change ones mind. In manuals, medical books, schools, etc. it was taught as a perversion, etc. Compare it to all of a sudden someone deciding that sharia law is now the law of the land. Lots of folks are not gonna just say “okay” when it was pounded by practically every institution in the country. Something ingrained for wrong as so long is not easily all of a sudden gonna be accepted as right. Lets say the scouts do accept gays, leaders and all. What is the difference between a gay leader in the tent with a little boy, even if there is no bad intention at all, and a straight male leader in the tent with a little girl in girl scouts (again, even if there is no bad intent?)
How about showers, etc? I sure as hell am independant, but this one is baffling to say the least…………………
uhhh…homosexuality has always been a perversion in the vast majority of societies…at least until around the late 1960s when the gay/lesbian agenda really began to take off.
Lets say the scouts do accept gays, leaders and all. What is the difference between a gay leader in the tent with a little boy, even if there is no bad intention at all, and a straight male leader in the tent with a little girl in girl scouts…
If you really have to ask this you are way out in left field somewhere.
rightwingextreme
January 29th, 2013
4:43 pm
Jay
January 29th, 2013
4:33 pm
Common sense should tell you being a Boy Scout leader, to a pedofile, would be like a starving man finding himself in a large, well stocked supermarket.
I would not want my son to have a gay Scoutmaster.
Would you?
So Indigo, in your world view, being gay means they would sexually abuse little boys? Gay=Pedophile?
Jay…see the problems with the Catholic Church on this issue. Yes, this would be like a supermarket to gays. Check out NAMBLA.
Paul
January 29th, 2013
4:43 pm
“David Brooks is not a conservative.” and variations on that statement.
There you have it, folks. In many peoples’ minds, “Republican” and ‘conservative” are one and the same. And for many, it’ not enough to be conservative, you have to be CONSERVATIVE . Still say the interlopers should leave the Party and form their own Conservative Party. We keep hearing how we’re in a conservative country. This oughta be a slam dunk for them. Before you know it, they’ll have most of the people in their Party!
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:45 pm
Jay – Indigo does on rare occasion get a stroke of common sense – gay scout masters with young boys – not such a good idea on camp outs. I would say the same for male Girl Scout masters on camp outs with little girls. You would put your child in harms way for P.C. ?
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
4:45 pm
“So Indigo, in your world view, being gay means they would sexually abuse little boys?”
I believe it is a fact that half or more of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. The percentage is much higher than that for those I have known personally – around 80-90%. It appears that most of those that have been sexually abused do not become abusers themselves, but more than a few do. But this isn’t the primary reason I oppose gays in the Boy Scouts. I do so on Biblical grounds. If you don’t agree, Jay, take it up with God on the last day.
“By that same logic, I guess that means that as a heterosexual, you shouldn’t be trusted around 11-year-old girls, correct?”
There is such a thing as girl scouts. And if you really don’t know an adult male, you as a parent are pretty stupid to leave your daughter alone with such a person. Sexual abuse happens MUCH more than is reported – just look at how long it took for the Penn State abuse to come to light.
josef
January 29th, 2013
4:46 pm
TBS
I liked that, too! Wonder if we could interest Weird Al in doing a parody?
Jay
January 29th, 2013
4:47 pm
“Check out NAMBLA.”
And check out what gay-rights groups have to say about NAMBLA.
Again, extremeright, I take it that since you’re hetero, you would abuse little girls if given the chance?
It’s the identical argument that you’re making.
josef
January 29th, 2013
4:49 pm
“New Mississippi”
Yep, them back asserd ignoramuses from the Magnolia State…who know’s what they’re gonna do next…
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20130129/NEWS/301290041/Troubles-in-Timbuktu-resonate-in-Jackson?source=nletter-news
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 29th, 2013
4:49 pm
Hmmm… being a male coach to girls gymnastics must be a virtual supermarket to heterosexual men.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
4:50 pm
“Jay…see the problems with the Catholic Church on this issue.”
The Catholic Church has more members than any other church in the world, are you suggesting that boys should not go to their churches and schools?
Sexual assault is mainly a crime committed by straight men. Do we also keep all females away from all men?
Wilbur
January 29th, 2013
4:50 pm
Only in Jay Bookman’s fantasy land is David Brooks a conservative. If that is what passes for truthful journalism, maybe Bookman should register his laptop with the freedom police.
TBS
January 29th, 2013
4:50 pm
josef
He would certainly be one who could do a good job.
josef
January 29th, 2013
4:51 pm
TBS
Temme sumpin…is Closet Capers closed on Tuesday?
fedup
January 29th, 2013
4:52 pm
What is Brooks smoking these days. Centralized govt. my a**. If want to see centralized govt. just look at China and then talk about Obama.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
4:52 pm
“Sexual assault is mainly a crime committed by straight men. Do we also keep all females away from all men?”
Whoops sorry rightwingextreme, your group doesn’t believe rape exists.
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
4:54 pm
Indigo is not saying that gays are pedophiles – some are – why take a chance with little children? Who knew that Bonnie Frank’s boy friend had little boys in Bonnie Frank’s basement? Why take a chance at the expense of a child? Pedophiles will ruin a child’s life and future FOREVER. Pedophiles that attack children should put to a quick death. They are the lowest form of scum on earth … be they heterosexual or homosexual.
TBS
January 29th, 2013
4:55 pm
josef
Not sure, but it seems we have a few here. Many sure seem to know what gay men want to to with Boy Scouts, NAMBLA, etc……
fedup
January 29th, 2013
4:56 pm
I like Isreal’s political system. Have a few parties and let have an election and people can choose their candidates which will different shades of Cons and Libs. Let a coalition run the Congress.
Aquagirl
January 29th, 2013
4:56 pm
The percentage is much higher than that for those I have known personally – around 80-90%.
TC, did it ever occur to you those gay men crying on your shoulder might not be a representative sample?
Scrivener
January 29th, 2013
4:56 pm
Glad Brooks has officially come out of the closet for not being “conservative” (as if any of the conservatives ever thought he was.) Now the NYT may have to find another token conservative columnist just to pretend they’re balanced.
barking frog
January 29th, 2013
4:57 pm
Brooks cannot embrace the word independent because he is conservative in
the manner of conservative Democrats of old or liberal Republicans of old and
wants to believe that retrogressives can have a party of their own. His desires
can only be accomplished by moving to the Democratic party just like Christie
and Rubio should do and this President is holding the door open and waving them in.
Obama Republicans.
Jay
January 29th, 2013
4:57 pm
“Indigo is not saying that gays are pedophiles – some are – why take a chance with little children?
Some straights are pedophiles. Why take a chance? No adult should ever have contact with any child, ESPECIALLY those children to whom you are related, because some 70 to 90 percent of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by relatives.
Why take the chance?
TBS
January 29th, 2013
4:58 pm
Morality
Since there are pedophiles who describe themselves as heterosexual, do the Boy Scouts just ban overnight trips?
I’m sure you know and commonsense dictates that they are homosexuals that work within the Scouts as we speak. Just because they are not raising their hand and saying “I’m gay” doesn’t mean that there are not gays in that organization.
josef
January 29th, 2013
4:59 pm
I do find it rather intriguing that the fellow who has linked Lolita in a positive fashion a number of times on FNM would be so upset about homosexual pedophiles…jus’ sayin’…
Joe Hussein Mama
January 29th, 2013
4:59 pm
Aquagirl — “TC, did it ever occur to you those gay men crying on your shoulder might not be a representative sample?”
Oh my. Skewed data? Quelle HORREUR.
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:00 pm
Keep Up
” being a male coach to girls gymnastics must be a virtual supermarket to heterosexual men.”
Televangelists and Republicans call for Olympics boycott in 3…2….1……
Jay
January 29th, 2013
5:01 pm
Despite my own great experience with the Boy Scouts, it’s important to note that time after time, all over the country, the organization covered up for and protected child predators in order to save its own reputation.
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
5:02 pm
“Oh my. Skewed data? Quelle HORREUR.”
I’m pretty sure Towncrier got his figures from another favorite of the right, utternonsense.com
Morality?
January 29th, 2013
5:03 pm
You are wrong Jay – as usual. No one on here has said that all “gays” are pedophiles ….. fact is some are and do rape little boys.. I said SOME. Some heterosexuals rape little girls. S A N D U S K Y. I wouldn’t put my child in harm’s way with a potential tragedy that would ruin his/her life forever just to make a P.C. point. Children trust us to protect them – but you to prove a point – would put them in harm’s way? What if your judgement is wrong?
Paul
January 29th, 2013
5:03 pm
“ESPECIALLY those children to whom you are related, because some 70 to 90 percent of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by relatives. ”
Okay, Jay…. NOW you’re sayin’ 70 to 90 percent of adults related to kids are gay?!1?
I knew it I knew it I knew it. ’splains everything1
alex
January 29th, 2013
5:04 pm
@Jay ,Ridiculous response as I said have courage in your convictions, Anyway, Brooks is definitely on to something and does have an audience. He writes op-ed pieces in the WSJ, I’ll look for him in Mother Jones next…..Goodnight , Jay, tommarrow we’d like alittle George Will and mabye MORE COWBELL..
josef
January 29th, 2013
5:04 pm
You know what? I probably know more gay people than most on here, and I will agree that an uncomfortable number of them have been molested. Overwhelmingly, that came from “straight” men, not gay ones…hardly a gay man I know doesn’t have a story to tell there, and guess who they went to for protection? It wasn’t a straight man in most cases…either a woman or a gay man, and most usually it was a woman…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 29th, 2013
5:04 pm
Well you don’t have to be a female to be a Girl Scout troop leader. Wonder why that is?
DannyX
January 29th, 2013
5:05 pm
” S A N D U S K Y.”
Was married to a woman. Do we keep all little boys away from married men?
You guys aren’t helping your case one bit.
Towncrier
January 29th, 2013
5:06 pm
“TC, did it ever occur to you those gay men crying on your shoulder might not be a representative sample?”
They weren’t “crying on [my] shoulder” (I am not sure why you suppose they were); they were being honest in Christian recovery-like groups – just like everyone else was (whether they were formerly gay, alcoholic, adulterous and so on). I don’t know how “representative” they are, but I am convinced that the sexual abuse of children is greatly under-reported (as I suppose is rape and similar crimes). So I don’t put much stock in the statistical “reports” on such things. I think they are probably wrong – maybe even to a great extent.
alex
January 29th, 2013
5:06 pm
Josef can a “straight” man molest a male and truly be “straight”, perhaps that was the point you were making. Straight or gay, pathetic molester…